What I Look for in a Red-Light Patent Case (and Why I Say “No” Sometimes)

One of the most valuable things a patent attorney can say to an inventor is a simple word:

“No.”

In my practice, that word usually comes after a Red-Light determination in Step 2.

Let me explain what a Red Light means, what I’m seeing in those cases, and why saying “no” is actually part of a client-first model.

What a Red Light means in my system

After Step 2 (search + analysis), I sort cases into:

• 🟡 Yellow, debatable; proceed only if you accept risk

• 🔴 Red, filing is not recommended

A Red Light means:

“I do not believe you should spend thousands of dollars filing and prosecuting a utility patent on this.”

Common patterns in Red-Light cases

While every case is different, many Red-Light determinations share one or more of these patterns:

• Very close prior art We find patents or publications that are functionally almost identical to your invention.

• Differences that are likely “obvious” Your changes over the prior art look like routine tweaks rather than true inventive steps.

• Disclosures that are too late Key events in your disclosure/sales timeline strongly suggest the application would be time-barred or highly vulnerable.

• “Idea-level” concepts without concrete structure The “invention” is really a business idea or high-level concept, without a clear engineered implementation.

• Extremely narrow novelty We can only identify a sliver of possible claim scope that is unlikely to give meaningful real-world protection.

Why I don’t sugarcoat weak cases

Could we still file a patent application in many Red-Light scenarios? Technically, yes.